[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5192454D.5030805@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 09:08:13 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
CC: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
EUNBONG SONG <eunb.song@...sung.com>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Subject: Re: EXT4 regression caused 4eec7
On 5/14/13 2:11 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:09:22 -0500, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On 5/13/13 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> On Mon 13-05-13 11:34:12, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/13 4:01 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
>>>>> In fact '4eec70' are vexing because I have reviewed and tested this patch before
>>>>> it was marked as Review-by, but missed the bug. This is because xfstests
>>>>> was executed manually logs was full of warnings but tainted flag was not
>>>>> checked at the end.
>>>>
>>>> Can you elaborate on this? What was logged, and is it something we could
>>>> try to pick up post-test in xfstests?
>>> Generally I think it might be useful if xfstests would fail / warn if
>>> kernel became tainted during the test (e.g. due to WARN_ON or oops, or
>>> something like that). It should be even relatively easy to implement
>>> (just compare /proc/sys/kernel/tainted before and after each test).
>>>
>>> Honza
>>>
>>
>> Ah, right. That should be easy, I'll see if I can cook that up.
> Also we can use abrt's kernel-oops handler to collect messages.
I sent a pretty simple patch to just check the sysctl to the xfs list
yesterday.
-Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists